SHER AFZAL KHAN vs The STATE
This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the superdari (custody) of a motorcar involved in a criminal case. The vehicle was seized in connection with FIR No. 194, registered under Section 15 of the Arms Act, following the recovery of arms and ammunition from secret cavities within the vehicle. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation or grant superdari when the petitioner failed to establish lawful ownership and the vehicle was used for criminal activity. The Court held that the petitioner failed to produce proof of ownership and that the circumstances of the recovery suggested active involvement. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it should not interfere with ongoing police investigations or assume the role of an investigating agency under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., absent exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to interfere with an ongoing police investigation?
- Is the High Court empowered to grant superdari of a vehicle involved in a criminal case when the applicant fails to prove ownership?
- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to quash an FIR under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. when alternative remedies are available under Sections 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 15, Arms Act
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUHAMMAD GHAZANFER KHAN, J.---The petitioner, namely, Sher Afzal Khan, through the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has assailed the order dated 18/5/2015 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV D.I. Khan, whereby his application for superdari of motorcar bearing registration No.ATE-364 in black colour, Model-2010 involved in case FIR No.194 dated 11/5/2015 under section 15 of the Arms Act registered in police station Saddar D.I. Khan was dismissed.
2. According to the FIR, huge quantity of arms and ammunitions have been recovered from the motorcar in question driven by the petitioner at the relevant time for which he was having no valid license or permit.
3. I have carefully gone through record of the case and anxiously considered the arguments addressed at the bar by learned counsels for the parties.
4. Perusal of record transpires that the petitioner has failed to produce any document before the Courts below and even today before this Court to show that he is lawful owner of the vehicle in question. Besides, some of the arms and ammunitions have been recovered from secret cavities of the said motorcar and in such circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that he was having no knowledge of the same does not appeal to a prudent mind.
5. By now there is no denial of the fact that once the FIR is registered, the Superior Courts having constitutional, supervisory and inherent jurisdiction have consistently refrained from direct interference with the investigation conducted by the local police in a criminal case, as the courts could not exercise the control over the investigation which may be prejudicial to the fairness of proceedings, apart from being without jurisdiction.
6. While going through the contents of the FIR and record of the case, one could find no infirmity legal or otherwise, or any jurisdictional defect which could justify this Court to interfere in the matter under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., unless and until very exceptional circumstances exist and which, as is evident from the record, is not the case here.
' In a case law reported as Doctor Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2008 SCM R 76), it has been held that the High Court has no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to take the role of investigation agency and to quash the FIR while exercising the inherent power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., unless and until very exceptional circumstances exists.
5. So was held in the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Muhammad Khan reported in (PLD 1967 Supreme Court 317) that remedy of quashment of proceedings is not available when alternate remedy is available in the shape of sections 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the above, this petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed.